Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Solvay conference 1927 Version2.jpg

File:Solvay conference 1927 Version2.jpg (delist), not delisted edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2020 at 01:41:13

Info Although the second photo has lower nominal resolution, it is clearly sharper than the first when compared at the same size. The second photo also preserves the shadows better and original exposition, which are lost in the first.(Original nomination, first delist) Wilfredor (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly sharper, but I think it's a bit dark. Would you mind brightening it up a little? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks King --Wilfredor (talk) 02:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for three reasons:

The original file shows an available size of 3170 px large, not 4708 px. Thus, I assume this was upscaled by Wilfredor (remember this nomination of last month). Our Image Quality guidelines request real pixels. Pictures here should be uploaded at their real size, and not artificially inflated. Otherwise please give a link to where it comes from with this special resolution.
This version is too contrasted, and does not match the original in sepia colors. See the blown highlights on the heads near Einstein, for example.
There are artifacts everywhere, due to the strong post-process (Topaz or another software). Skins, noses, wrinkles, are now full of stains. Sorry but the quality is worse in this version than on the non-restored one.

Thus, I would replace this FP by the original yes (uploaded with or without frame), slightly bigger in size and with natural colors, but definitely not this file, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't apply any upscaling process, it was juts a download from the source and stain and tear restoration. Please, take a look to image source --Wilfredor (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source displaying a picture with 7,15 Mpx and an upload that makes 15,19 Mpx on Commons? How weird! Best maybe is to upload the original here, then, so we can compare and see which work was made? "I don't apply any upscaling process", and what about generating "more details from non-existent pixels"? -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Basile Morin and Iifar: I did not apply any artificial intelligence upscaling, noise reduction, this was a mere tear and stain repair. Also, I uploaded another (removing sharpening filter automatically added by lightroom) and you will find the source here. Thanks for your recommendation. :) --Wilfredor (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the source online? This is the same than this one upscaled to 4749 px large, when you zoom very big. No more details, sorry. 50% of the pixels here are not real -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. --Ivar (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- absolutely not convinced by the second version. Yes, looked at both at 100%. --A.Savin 17:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delist and replace it does seem like a modest improvement to me (not just because of the resolution FWIW). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per Basile, replace with the original, which is a sepia photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination A series of bad faith comments on this nomination by the user Basile. A discussion about this is taking place here --Wilfredor (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion archived here. Greetings -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]